Sniper

Description

Canadian Sniper Harold Marshall photographed with is Lee–Enfield No. 4 Mk 1 (T) in Belgium. September 1944
He died January, 19th 2013.
Colorisation of the original b/w(https://www.facebook.com/790508287736232/photos/p.912739215513138/912739215513138/?type=3&theater)
taken from fb/World War Colorisation)

Recent comments

There is a (sort of) amusing story about the use of the Enfield Minié-system muzzle-loading rifle at the siege of Sebastopol. The siege itself was arguably a result of the failure of the allied (British and French) forces to take full advantage of...

There is a (sort of) amusing story about the use of the Enfield Minié-system muzzle-loading rifle at the siege of Sebastopol. The siege itself was arguably a result of the failure of the allied (British and French) forces to take full advantage of earlier rifle-facilitated victories. At any rate, the allies became involved in a protracted siege of the port.

To relieve their boredom, British soldiers were prone to amuse themselves by taking pot-shots at Russian defenders. Their trenches were out of range of Russian smoothbore muskets, but within range for a Minié or Enfield rifle. As a result, Russian soldiers moving in the line (in order to go on relief, or to the toilet for example) made themselves targets for British riflemen. The unfortunate Russian had no way of responding to this short of artillery (not practical) or making a sally (suicidal). The woes of a soldier's life ... JR.

Range and rate of fire rank far ahead of accuracy. Talented and well-trained snipers are one thing, but the vast majority of soldiers are, at best, indifferent shots. There is little point in emphasizing accuracy, even if military rifles, going back...

Range and rate of fire rank far ahead of accuracy. Talented and well-trained snipers are one thing, but the vast majority of soldiers are, at best, indifferent shots. There is little point in emphasizing accuracy, even if military rifles, going back to the mid-19th century, were technically capable of accurate shooting at very long ranges.

Infantry musketry - the development of which was insignificant between the general adoption of the flintlock (late-17th century) and the mid-19th century, when the various problems limiting the utility of early rifles through the invention of the Minié rifle and "ball". The great advantage of the Minié system was the the muzzle-loading rifle could be reloaded with the ease of reloading a smoothbore musket, and the effective range (as distinct from the much longer technical range). As compared with smoothbores, Minié-type rifles could kill with reasonable accuracy at 400-500 yards; smoothbores were wildly inaccurate and their killing range was not much above 150 yards. This revolutionized military musketry. The first "rifle war" - the Crimea War - was probably won by Minié and Minié system Enfield muzzle-loading rifles, used by the British; the Russians were armed exclusively at this time with smoothbore muskets.

In the following period, rifle technology advanced rapidly, and the main net improvement was in rate of fire. Development went through early single-shot breechloaders, tube magazines (single shot repeaters), ending up with magazine-fed rifles like the WWI Lee-Enfield and Mauser. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the range of fire usually ordered for those magazine-fed rifles was still 400-500 yards. The great improvement was in rate of fire. This fact is often overlooked in favour of the other game-changing development in military technology the Maxim gun. Certainly, the Maxim was a great advance in defensive technology - but a hail of bullets from Lee Enfields would have made the battlefield rather more dangerous, anyway.

In my humble opinion, bearing the above in mind, the Lee Enfield was the best military rifle of its epoch, with Mauser not far behind. It was a superb culmination of the 19th century surge in development in musketry, and served its purpose admirably. Just my opinion, JR.

Have you ever shot one? My Lee Enfield No.4 fires great, with Iron Sights, without a scope. Besides the Lee Enfield was meant for rapid fire, not really for accuracy unlike the Mauser and the Springfield. The Sten was for street fighting not for sniping...

Have you ever shot one? My Lee Enfield No.4 fires great, with Iron Sights, without a scope. Besides the Lee Enfield was meant for rapid fire, not really for accuracy unlike the Mauser and the Springfield. The Sten was for street fighting not for sniping so it did not need a "great sight".

those lee enfield rifle are catastrophe without a scope and I not to mention the Sten submachinegun
Did you ever see this rifle sight? You look absolutely nothing, too small the sight
And the Sten submachinegun has also this problem (too...

those lee enfield rifle are catastrophe without a scope and I not to mention the Sten submachinegun
Did you ever see this rifle sight? You look absolutely nothing, too small the sight
And the Sten submachinegun has also this problem (too small sight) and wonder why have no got grip on the submachinegun

Link for Forums

WW2inColor is made up of a large WW2 photograph collection of over 45 thousand images which have been viewed over 110 million times over the last few years. Our upload feature allows website visitors to add related WW2 images and other historic documents for educational purposes.